netdev - Re: DECnet routing rule resolution

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:43:06 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	swhiteho@...hat.com
Cc:	tgraf@...g.ch, netdev@...r.kernel.org, pcaulfie@...hat.com
Subject: Re: DECnet routing rule resolution

From: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:24:10 +0100

> One of the effects of the recent tidy up of the DECnet routing rules
> code is that we are no longer able to see the difference between reading
> a rule of type FR_ACT_UNREACHABLE returning -ENETUNREACH and simply
> running out of rules to look at, which also returns the same thing.
> 
> The DECnet code used to return -ESRCH if it ran out of rules in which
> case the test in dn_route.c (which resulted in DECnet falling back to
> endnode routing in the -ESRCH case) no longer works.
> 
> So there seems to be several options to try and solve this: one is to
> change the error return for running out of rules in
> fib_rules.c:fib_rules_lookup() to something else (but then that has a
> knock on effect in the ipv4 code). Another is to add the "not found"
> error return as a parameter in the struct fib_rules_ops so that both
> protocols can have their preferred error return. Both solutions seem a
> bit messy, so I thought I'd ask for some guidance on this before writing
> a patch,

I think we should be able to return -ESRCH (a more sensible error
value if you ask me) across the board.

Thomas what do you think?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html